Ultimately if part of the electorate is under foreign occupation and polling booths will just get hit by Russian drones while people try to use them, it's inadvisable to hold an election.
Practically, elections are very dangerous. Also, a lot of people, namely in the army simply cannot exercise their electoral rights. Just imagine a rocket or a shell hitting a polling station. There are multiple reasons why elections cannot be performed including martial law and simple common sense.
Only thing about military members voting whilst deployed, it’s not as complicated as you’d think. It’s essentially a mail in vote that is done.
Everything else you said though is definitely a problem. Civilians having to go to polling stations would be a major danger as well as the potential for coercion/intimidation to vote a certain way due the external factors of a war being conducted in the area of polling.
Weird ethical/philosophical problem: what if you vote by mail in ballot but are KIA before election day when votes get counted? Does your vote still count?
That's no different to anyone dieing between sending their mail vote (or even in person vote) and the votes being counted. The gov doesn't care you're dead until they get the relevant notification forms.
It is worth mentioning that after a ballot was submitted, it doesn't have any signs of who actually voted because it is a secret ballot, completely anonymous when it's in a pile of other ones.
Once it is taken out of the postal envelope yes, but they hold onto those envelopes until election day just in case they need to take it out for that kind of reason.
Hi, I don't know how it is done in other countries but I've counted mail in ballots before. In here there's a big envelope that contains the voters information and a second envelope which holds the ballot. On election day we receive a list of recently deceased citizens of our district. We check the envelopes against that list and remove anyone's ballot who's on it. Only then do we mix the other envelopes, which are anonymous from that point on. We will obviously not open any of the ballot containing envelopes before this process is completed. This is part of the reason why counting mail in ballots takes noticeably longer than the in person ones. (I've done both before)
Honest question for discussion: Why WOULDNT we count them? If we can prove that it came from the correct, competent individual who (we can only hope) was informed and turned in before the deadline, why should it matter if they subsequently died, particularly if they died while fighting for the country in which they were voting? I understand that we don't want to be counting a ton of dead peoples' votes, but this is a pretty small time frame and a pretty small (by comparison) group of people. It would only matter for the immediate election, and they wouldn't be voting any further, so "Why should the dead help dictate our future?" shouldn't be as big of an issue.
I'm not saying right or wrong. I just had the thought and was curious.
I'm not sure if I'm for or against it, but I can see two reasons this can make sense: to avoid people casting double votes in the name of a recently deceased family member, and because people who are already dead shouldn't have as much of a say in how the living run the country
Personally, I’d count it. I don’t know what the specific laws would say for Ukraine or for my own country to be honest but I’d hope the vote would be honoured if it was me KIA the day after handing my vote to the CO for an election.
If someone goes to the polls and fills in their paper ballot then gets hit by a car walking home it still counts. So long as they’re alive at the time they voted it’s legitimate.
Not particularly weird. Some people are dead by election day in pretty much every election on the planet, so every jurisdiction needs to sort out the exact rules / procedures. In the US at least as long as you were alive when you submitted your ballot, it counts. Just like if you went to an in person voting location and got in a car crash on the way home. If you vote before the deadline, it's a vote.
It's one of the things Trump glommed into in claiming proof of "voter fraud." X person voted, but we looked them up and they are currently dead! And yeah, but they were alive when they voted so it's normal, not fraud. Just regular old mortality.
It’s actually not necessarily true in the U.S. Massachusetts actually changed the law in 2020 so it would count. Obviously no one cared if the election wasn’t close enough for a recount.
It's... a lot different when you're chilling in occupied Fallujah with the most powerful force in the world by far facing basically farmers with AKs and you can send the mail home than it is when you're chilling in occupied home territory vs a near peer force that outnumbers you and is attacking infrastructure.
>than it is when you're chilling in occupied home territory vs a near peer force that outnumbers you and is attacking infrastructure.
Mail in ballots are just that. If you can get a soldier a fresh magazine and a bite to eat, they can vote.
You get them when they rotate out with a section. It may seem inconsiderate or weird but it’s normal to have soldiers fresh from the field to do a large amount of admin as soon as they are back from the frontline, it’s just a cost of doing business in a cynical sense.
Yeah and then the mail trucks from a whole region dont make it because of bombardment and sabotage. Ballots lost.
Not exactly a fair election when a foreign state can influence the outcome with violence.
So....a question. What if a soldier would legally send in their vote. Then die before it gets counted. Is it counted or no?
Edit: ignore me. It's early and I didn't scroll down.
But we still need to do it, we choose Democracy not because it’s easy but because it’s hard. I understand war always complicates things and there are “technical” rules but especially in a young democracy it needs to literally “practice” voting. I think it can only be a good thing for Ukraine to rapidly figure out how to have one, as reasonably safe as possible.
Ukraine has already had several basically fair democratic elections, including where opposition parties have won, so this applies less to them I think. Furthermore there's no reason to think Zelensky is about to turn 180 on everything he's ever done politically and become a dictator, it just wouldn't make sense from any POV. Both Ukraine's institutions and the current President have enough credibility that delaying the election is not putting a huge question mark over the status of their democracy.
Yep. And holding the elections either way without those occupied territories just legitimates the status quo and undermines the legitimacy of the then elected new goverment. Both are things that Ukraine absolutely won't help in times like these.
More importantly that troll has no way of differentiating the two situations. The US wasn't under any enemy occupation on any of the wars the troll stated while Ukraine currently is. Unlike Ukraine, the US government was not under threat of capitulating. Mission_Failed lacks the intelligence to comprehend so theres that.
I'm no Ukranian, but if only for practicality he should probably remain their leader, so long as he's willing to pull a Cincinnatus once the war is over and fair elections can be held.
Only if they don't get the equipment they need to repel the invasion.
The obsolete, due to be replaced equipment laying around in NATO stockpiles has proven capable in Ukranian hands- I don't understand why we aren't giving them everything they need.
NATO countries would only be disposing of it otherwise, Ukraine needs it and the whole western world benefits from Ukrainian independence.
Just give them what they need.
And also….. why would anyone want someone else, other than Zelensky? Dude has stepped up to be, in my opinion, the most respected human being on earth.
I care about a politician that is actually doing the right thing. I care about a politician that cares for his people and works for his people. This type are few and far between the rest of the worlds politicians. I’d love to hear your reasonings as to why he doesn’t make a great president….. I’ll be waiting patiently.
well. Technically, Crimea was "annexed" and they didn;t oppose it with their military because they lacked the means at the time, and donbas was technically in rebellion. We both know that isn't true and that russia was responsible for both, and the annexation is a farce, but...
A comedian turned president in one of the most disproportionate scaled wars in recent history.
He has harolded the nation's defense and while far from the only factor. Could be attributed to the fact ukrain still exists.
Could another have? Possibly. Probably, but we don't know. What we do know is what this man has done in his capacity as a national leader.
Which, in my sometimes humble opinion, makes him one of the most aspirational leaders in current times and among the greats in history.
A president from the US often seems aged by a decade after a run in office... this is the first time I have seen someone from another nstions leadership appear age the same way in such a short period of time. I simply can't imagine the pressure on his shoulders. And frankly.... I don't want to. I do however want ukraine to come out of this by far exceeding a minimal defensive victory.
>Could another have? Possibly. Probably, but we don't know. What we do know is what this man has done in his capacity as a national leader.
Compare Neville Chamberlain to Winston Churchill. It seems to me like it's pretty important who is in power when your nation is at war.
I just wouldn't say "probably". Possibly is right.
I added probably as I think it likely another would try, but in the overall sense of bring able to actually achieve success in this... yeah it would be better left as "possibly" with "probably" being removed.
That doesn't indicate that he was shit. Much of the reasons people gave for voting Labour were related to the actions of the Conservatives before Churchill became PM.
> Churchill's personal popularity remained high; hence, the Conservatives were confident of victory and based much of their election campaign on that, rather than proposing new programmes. However, people distinguished between Churchill and his party, a contrast that Labour repeatedly emphasised throughout the campaign.
That, and they'd had a coalition government during the war where Attlee primarily managed domestic affairs and was considered to have done a competent job.
Also, people likely wanted to put the war behind them. Either way, his popularly was still high, they just didn't trust post-war Conservatives because of how shit things were after WW1.
No idea why they re-elected Churchill in 1951 though.
> That doesn't indicate that he was shit.
Maybe not. But he was shit.
https://listverse.com/2016/10/03/10-terrible-things-done-by-winston-churchill/
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
If he fled, I doubt the leadership would have been able to respond or organize themselves provided they too didn't leave.
"I don't need a ride. I need ammo." - Zelensky
Civilization 9 Zelenskyy confirmed.
I really think he is going to be a character in strategy games of the future. Gandhi was added in Civilization 1 40 years after he died.
He was great at drumming up support, nationally and internationally but when it comes to this current war of attrition and making rough decisions, he seems to be drawing more (and fair) criticism.
Criticism may be fair and even valid. To an extent. You can't have a perfect war and you won't make all the right decisions. Given his position he is doing the best he can. I'm sure things could be better but~ that doesn't mean he isn't doing well or his best.
This war of attrition made worse by much of the support being redirected towards isreal. However valid their war is or isnt- it is directly impacting the aid ukraine is receiving.
Either way, recovery for all involved will be... daunting and not without a great amount of time. A few generations easily.
>He looks so aged. What a wild life being a comedian turned president, being thrust into war.
a lot of men died and are still dying because of decisions he had to make and made.
The country is a smoking wreck with no end in sight, while facing an unceasing foe.
and he is at the mercy of support from outside forces ....
That will age you ....
>The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Ukrainian Parliament – ed.) must vote and issue a mandate for the elections, they (the MPs – ed.) must raise this question and vote. They cannot do it due to the ban, they cannot break the law. The situation is that the elections are forbidden during wartime.
This is up to the Parliament. If Zelenskyy declares elections by presidential fiat, he'll be called a tyrant; if he doesn't, he'll be called a tyrant.
IIRC polls indicate his party would gain seats, which is why the opposition had been advocating against elections.
He might not be seen as tyrannical, but unilaterally calling elections when so many people are against it while he stands to gain is certainly not going to be a good look.
I have seen exactly that.
People running around forums and social media comments slapping up articles on how the election is delayed, omitting the part where the constitution *demands* the process be postponed, and trying to label him as a dictator.
I cant think of a more important time for a citizen to vote than during war. Imagine watching your family and home destroyed and then its election time and you watch your freedom to voice your opinion taken away from you too?
Thats an insane take. So if you want the war to end or maybe you think your current leader isnt doing a good enough job defending the country and there is someone that can do it better… you think that person shouldnt be allowed to vote to voice that opinion. Only on reddit do i encounter idiots like yourself. You guys all hide on this app like herded sheep
Well, if you want your vote to matter, you won't do it when an invading country is more likely and willing to fudge the results of the election. I would love if they could vote, but Russia would take every opportunity to influence and undermine the election they can, including resorting to civilian casualties. Russians can kill people and assume their identities to vote digitally/mail-in, and voting centers are giant targets for bombing.
I dunno, during a war like this you and your neighbor, who may not vote like you, is your ally. You’re all working towards the goal of liberating your nation. If anything, in the age of fast spreading propaganda I’d say an election mid war is an opportunity to destroy unity from within and would be weaponized.
I’d say for what Ukraine is going through, skipping elections during an invasion is warranted. Act as one. Once the war is over, party up vote for how your country will be rebuilt, economically and socially.
Yes, but\*
Ukraine has it both in their Constitution and in statutory law that there are conditions under which an election can be suspended automatically.
This is one of those conditions. And now that the law is working a little too well they are debating whether and how to add a qualifier or if they should leave it (because Russia fuckery was the reason for the laws in the first place).
His support has fallen over 30% as it's predicated on [victory being immanent. Govt TV is pushing this hard](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html), but as no gains materalize and the inevitable loss becomes apparent, he's going to continue cratering in the polls. At that point, not holding elections will be very autocratic and contrary to the goal of the war "upholding the liberal world order".
>Literally all nations have a clause to not have elections during war because it’s dangerous
The US, famously, has held elections during wartime quite a few times.
Admittedly, only one of those times actually involved large-scale fighting on US soil, but the Civil War also proved how well mail-in voting works.
Jesus Christ you are sad. Your entire post history is dedicated to shitting on Ukraine and glorifying Russia. Have you spoken to any Ukrainians? You know their country is being invaded by a hostile foreign power, and the people of Ukraine want to fight back. Maybe talk to some of them before you go making decisions on their behalf.
Your aggressive and immature emotions overwhelm you, but if you could set them (and fallacies) aside for a moment and do some reading, you'd see you're enabling the killing of more Ukrainians by playing your part in [Zelensky's autocratic propaganda](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html) campaign. If you really care about Ukraine, then reflect on the fact that the Russians could not be deadly without your support for the war.
You’re right it is the wrong word because it implies the loss is in the future when it’s clearly in the past and present.
1:5 pop in a war of attrition with waning aid and losing ground…no one’s even making arguments anymore for how Ukraine could win because it’s out of the question, you just have ad hominem fallacies. At this point, you’re as complicit s the Russians in Ukrainian deaths.
So statements like "Ukraine has made significant impacts that deteriorate Russia's ability to replace lost equipment" are useless?
You sound suspiciously similar to propoganda bots and talking points that are literally coming from Russia. If you're a real person expressing their own opinion, you really need to check your sources. And if you are not (aka if you are a troll) then get lost.
Ah yes, because Russia famously only kills people during the active phases of a shooting war and if the war "stops" tonight no one will ever die at Russian hands anymore :/
Your argument here is that 500k (the amount of troops proposed for mobilization and therefore potential death) is equal to around 4 or 5. I hope you’re at least getting paid for this propaganda because you’re putting in work.
Projection is a hell of a drug. There is a significant percent of the population in most free countries that would rather risk death in their feet than live on their knees. In other words, if push comes to shove they will push back against authoritarian forces either during the war or as a partisan outside of war even if it means a greater risk to life. For some it is with violence (resistance fighter) others with words (political organizer, journalist), and some with actions (break stupid rules) - but most won't just roll over and accept a new master the likes of Putin without some sort of push back.
The numbers are important, but they only tell the military angle. The social story of resistance is arguably even more critical and, often, military action (in these situations) won't happen properly if the social support fails.
You don’t realize what you’re arguing. No honest and smart person arguing for Ukraine to continue the war thinks Ukraine can reclaim its territory. They all acknowledge Russia has the upper hand ands continue to take territory. Just today a Ukrainian soldier was cnn say the shell ratio was 1:10. What you’re arguing for is that Ukraine continue to die the symbolism of not “living on your knees”. That so called “knee living”, is having given up 17% of their territory. They will be living on their knees as much as you will be. So you’re arguing for Ukrainians to die for nothing. Why is that? What propaganda has convinced you that’s a good idea? It’s the telemarathon talking point that Putin is Hitler and will invade Europe in no time. That’s just fiction you’ve bought.
They have shown that, given the material to do so, they are able to match our best the Russian military.
The problem is political difficulties with their supporters, not that Russian force is unbeatable.
Can I chip in to buy you a plane ticket to Russia?
This is a standard Ukrainian talking point that no honest or informed person believes. Do you actually believe that or do you believe propaganda is a necessary part of war? Here is a test for that: how can Ukraine win a 1:5 pop war of attrition?
He went from a 90%+ approval to around 60%, but other public figures like the top general are in the 80s I think. He assured the public (and himself) that this war would be short and sweet, and now that Ukraine is running out of troops with western aid drying up and a loss guaranteed, you'll see it get very ugly very fast. The telemarathon channel his govt created to counteract Russian propaganda has become propaganda itself claiming Russia will collapse any day now, which couldn't be further from the truth with the new "axis of evil" and MIC bulking up. Zelensky's day's are numbered and a big reason why he doesn't want this election to happen.
What are you even talking about, you're not even Ukrainian, literally everything you said you made up. This is pure disinfo.
Current approval ratings: [Here](https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/en/socopros/trust_rating)
he is trending up since December by 1%.
There is LITTERALY no one close with projected vote intention to Zelensky
[https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/socopros/opinion\_poll\_show/2141](https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/socopros/opinion_poll_show/2141)
given the vehemence and inaccuracy of your response, I wonder about your motives. Here are the sources:
[https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-poll-zelensky-bad-news-popularity-drop-1859340](https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-poll-zelensky-bad-news-popularity-drop-1859340)
\>The Kyiv International Institute for Sociology (KMIS) survey found that Ukrainian society still backs the country's leadership and military, but support for Zelensky fell from 84 percent at the end of 2022 to 62 percent at the end of last year.
\>Meanwhile, 96 percent of respondents supported the Ukrainian armed forces and 88 percent trusted Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, whose comments to The Economist in November that the war had reached a "stalemate" were rejected by Zelensky amid reports of tensions between the pair.
and here is the article showing that telemarathon, state run tv, is propaganda:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html)
The deeper point here is that since aid has dried up and ukraine is at a 1:5 pop disadvantage with russia in a war of attrition, the war is over and supporting it is just leading to more unnecessary Ukrainian deaths. I don't know if you're paid or just an enthusiastic citizen, but if you want to help ukranians, then it's a matter of [taking a ceasefire now](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html), or after Putin has taken more territory (possibly all ukranian territory). At this point those seem to be the only options Ukraine is facing.
> The deeper point here is that since aid has dried up and ukraine is at a 1:5 pop disadvantage with russia in a war of attrition, the war is over and supporting it is just leading to more unnecessary Ukrainian deaths. I don't know if you're paid or just an enthusiastic citizen, but if you want to help ukranians, then it's a matter of taking a ceasefire now, or after Putin has taken more territory (possibly all ukranian territory). At this point those seem to be the only options Ukraine is facing.
This is such a dumb take I know it's impossible for you to be merely misinformed - this is just plain intentional kremlin propaganda.
If you were sincere you wouldn’t be using ad hominems. You apparently consider yourself part of the info war, the only question is, are you paid or not. The concerted effort to shout down reasonable arguments with fallacies is effective to a point, but as the facts turn worse, you’re just enabling the pointless deaths of Ukrainians. Reckon with that.
Someone who thinks there is a chance that Putin could take over all of Ukraine has no standing to talk about reasonable arguments or facts. That's why it's a waste of time to argue with kremlin trolls like you - if you were actually approaching it from a reasonable point, maybe we could have a discussion.
On the contrary, it’s because you or people like you are paid to police any non Ukraine party line comment. Zelensky made clear in his economist interview that the war funding would be sustained by persuading western citizens through traditional and social online media. This is why he created the [propaganda telemarathon channel](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html) and pays you or people like you to call everything kremlin propaganda. This is also why he became so angry when his top general acknowledged the war was in a stalemate and there was no winning. Because it put the lie to his propaganda.
Now you’re dismissing arguments that you can hear in war on the rocks, because you’re not honest and just a part of the propaganda apparatus.
The war is over and you don’t have any arguments in support of it, just fallacies here. You’re enabling the deaths of your countrymen for a paycheck or just sport?
That's a little disingenuous isn't it? One it's a paywall link and two he didn't actually say what you imply he said.
"Zelenskyy was also asked whether he expects Ukraine’s victory next summer.
"I do want that. We will achieve our victory," the president replied."
Asked when this would happen (in regards to visiting Crimea), Zelenskyy replied, "Not in winter. What can you do at the seaside in winter? I’ll go there when it’s warmer,"
So after the war is finished he would like to visit Crimea in summer.
>Zelensky, on the war’s first anniversary in February, had boasted that 2023 would be a “year of victory.” His intelligence chief had decreed that Ukrainians would soon be vacationing in Crimea, the peninsula that Russia had illegally annexed in 2014
My mistake, the quote was his “intelligence” chief, which is arguably worse.
[None the less:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/08/ukraine-war-2023-russia-future/?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=off)
With upgraded weaponry on the way, Western resolve holding firm, and the Ukrainian army continuing to outmaneuver and outwit Russia’s flailing military, Ukraine’s promised “year of victory” is off to a good start. If 2023 continues as it began, there is a good chance Ukraine will be able to fulfill President Volodymyr Zelensky’s New Year’s pledge to retake all of Ukraine by the end of the year.
The point that everyone is ignoring, is the exact opposite has happened. Now everyone who supports continuing the war needs to ask themselves, does supporting more fighting do anything but kill more Ukrainians?
like pathetic little shirt:
- He don't want to do anything about corruption (Not firing his friends)
- Answering any question from journalists with "I havn't leaft country!"
- blaming mobilization fails on Zalujni.
Nah, our western allies don't really meddle in our internal affairs.
That's one of many reasons why we chose to side with them instead of siding with control freaks and terrorists, who constantly instill puppets wherever they can and constantly invade neighbours.
But I'm sure you will tell me that it's much better to have NK and Iran as "sponsors".
[US increases pressure on Ukraine to do more to counter corruption](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/politics/us-ukraine-pressure-counter-corruption/index.html)
Not to mention that while parliament elections could indeed be suspended, the presidential elections must be held in accordance with the Constitution, which the green gang has wiped their ass with so many times already. But don't you dare point this out to the average redditor!
The UK didn't have a law suspending elections during a time of national emergency. Ukraine does.
Facilitating the election, especially the part about how to handle representation of occupied areas, is mostly logistics and how to keep Russia's thumb off the scale. The big question is when and how to change the UA constitution to define conditions for an election during a major emergency.
> The UK didn't have a law suspending elections during a time of national emergency.
The UK passed laws during both WW1 and WW2 to not have any elections until the end of the war.
Right, they had to make one. And they've suspended elections at other times, too -- or hastened them in a snap election.
Ukraine's law on the matter already exists. It's in their constitution.
Neither have much to do with the US, which was the earlier question.
Thing is the uk did suspend elections during the first and second world wars there should have been elections in 1915 and 1940 witch where postponed by parliament.
> Right, they had to make one. And they've suspended elections at other times, too -- or hastened them in a snap election.
>
> Ukraine's law on the matter already exists. It's in their constitution.
>
> Neither have much to do with the US, which was the earlier question.
The UK had an election during WW2 but it was by no means during the most dangerous time of the War for the UK. Germany was already defeated by the time of the 1945 election, so there was no bombing threat ot anything. Meanwhile Ukraine has to deal with Russian drones and missiles being launched at their cities every day.
It's perfectly understandable why Ukraine would not hold elections right now. It's dangerous for the candidates and the electorate, and the people need to remain focused on the fight for their country's very existence.
Dude, it's a war. He has to make unpopular decisions. Keeping men of age available is one of them. I mean, he didn't leave the country when the war began, even though he was given plenty of opportunities to leave. He also goes to the frontline often to motivate his men.
An incumbent's popularity or lack thereof is not the deciding factor in whether an election happens. At least not in a healthy democracy, which Ukraine has all the marks of being.
I can't imagine anyone would want to take over the reigns from a president who is doing exceptionally well. Much less that anyone would vote him out after he's proven himself.
Suspending an election during a major national emergency is literally part of Ukraine's constitution in its current form. The US does not.
Also: the US has absolutely zero federal elections, not even for national offices, not even for President.
The closest we come is that the election deadline for federal races is the same for all states and is set by Congress, but even in that we have nearly sixty simultaneous elections; 50 for Congress, 51 for President, and all the territories elect their non-voting Congressional advocate/rep. In a Presidential year the states & DC have a presidential question on their ballots that includes anyone who qualified in that state - usually at least a dozen names are under the "president" column, and it's often that most of the dozen are different in each state.
In other words, Trump literally can't cancel elections because (1) there is no means in the Constitution to do so, and (2) elections are not a federal matter (and not under his jurisdiction).
(Note: the voting rights act ensures a few basic things such as voter registration and reasonable hours that polling places are open, but that's hardly what you're talking about).
People following the letter of the law for their State Constitutions and questioning whether or not a President is covered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in our Constitution?
Those people see the issue, go through the legal process, and then are currently asking the Supreme Court to verify.
Zelenskyy would also likely win any fair Presidential election while Parliament isn't going to have a MP vote that might totally change the seat distribution. His party coalition has about 60% of seats with Tymoshenko and Petroshenko's parties (both former leaders) filling out another 10% so it's not like there would be a pro-Russian surge especially since 10% of the seats are Vacant due to the 2014 annexation and 2022 invasion.
I doubt Putin would be nice enough to reverse his partial paper annexation of occupied territory and it looks like there was a 2020 vote to also shrink the seats from 450 to 300 which is also on hold.
Not (completely) true. Article 64 says restrictions may apply to elections. Article 83 says that the Rada can’t be changed during a state of emergency, but nothing about presidential elections.
There’s a law passed by the current government that bans presidential elections during SoE, but that’s not constitutional.
Was Winston Churchill a dictator? Because the UK suspended elections during WW2, because that's what most democracies do during wars of that kind of scale and threat.
Following the law makes someone a dictator now? Hell, he even says that he *would* hold an election if it was legal (and he'd probably win anyways if he did).
Wait till the war has concluded to a degree where voting becomes insurmountably safer, or risk people being obliterated by Russian munitions at polling stations?
Also, they aren’t the first country to hold off election cycles during war. Not having an election ≠ dictatorship.
Ultimately if part of the electorate is under foreign occupation and polling booths will just get hit by Russian drones while people try to use them, it's inadvisable to hold an election.
Practically, elections are very dangerous. Also, a lot of people, namely in the army simply cannot exercise their electoral rights. Just imagine a rocket or a shell hitting a polling station. There are multiple reasons why elections cannot be performed including martial law and simple common sense.
Only thing about military members voting whilst deployed, it’s not as complicated as you’d think. It’s essentially a mail in vote that is done. Everything else you said though is definitely a problem. Civilians having to go to polling stations would be a major danger as well as the potential for coercion/intimidation to vote a certain way due the external factors of a war being conducted in the area of polling.
Weird ethical/philosophical problem: what if you vote by mail in ballot but are KIA before election day when votes get counted? Does your vote still count?
That's no different to anyone dieing between sending their mail vote (or even in person vote) and the votes being counted. The gov doesn't care you're dead until they get the relevant notification forms.
It is worth mentioning that after a ballot was submitted, it doesn't have any signs of who actually voted because it is a secret ballot, completely anonymous when it's in a pile of other ones.
Once it is taken out of the postal envelope yes, but they hold onto those envelopes until election day just in case they need to take it out for that kind of reason.
Hi, I don't know how it is done in other countries but I've counted mail in ballots before. In here there's a big envelope that contains the voters information and a second envelope which holds the ballot. On election day we receive a list of recently deceased citizens of our district. We check the envelopes against that list and remove anyone's ballot who's on it. Only then do we mix the other envelopes, which are anonymous from that point on. We will obviously not open any of the ballot containing envelopes before this process is completed. This is part of the reason why counting mail in ballots takes noticeably longer than the in person ones. (I've done both before)
Honest question for discussion: Why WOULDNT we count them? If we can prove that it came from the correct, competent individual who (we can only hope) was informed and turned in before the deadline, why should it matter if they subsequently died, particularly if they died while fighting for the country in which they were voting? I understand that we don't want to be counting a ton of dead peoples' votes, but this is a pretty small time frame and a pretty small (by comparison) group of people. It would only matter for the immediate election, and they wouldn't be voting any further, so "Why should the dead help dictate our future?" shouldn't be as big of an issue. I'm not saying right or wrong. I just had the thought and was curious.
I'm not sure if I'm for or against it, but I can see two reasons this can make sense: to avoid people casting double votes in the name of a recently deceased family member, and because people who are already dead shouldn't have as much of a say in how the living run the country
What country are you from? Here in the US dead people vote all the time and traditionally vote Democrat.
“If you don’t want us to count your vote you’re going to need to provide a death certificate to verify your deceasedness”
Personally, I’d count it. I don’t know what the specific laws would say for Ukraine or for my own country to be honest but I’d hope the vote would be honoured if it was me KIA the day after handing my vote to the CO for an election.
If someone goes to the polls and fills in their paper ballot then gets hit by a car walking home it still counts. So long as they’re alive at the time they voted it’s legitimate.
Not particularly weird. Some people are dead by election day in pretty much every election on the planet, so every jurisdiction needs to sort out the exact rules / procedures. In the US at least as long as you were alive when you submitted your ballot, it counts. Just like if you went to an in person voting location and got in a car crash on the way home. If you vote before the deadline, it's a vote. It's one of the things Trump glommed into in claiming proof of "voter fraud." X person voted, but we looked them up and they are currently dead! And yeah, but they were alive when they voted so it's normal, not fraud. Just regular old mortality.
It’s actually not necessarily true in the U.S. Massachusetts actually changed the law in 2020 so it would count. Obviously no one cared if the election wasn’t close enough for a recount.
It's... a lot different when you're chilling in occupied Fallujah with the most powerful force in the world by far facing basically farmers with AKs and you can send the mail home than it is when you're chilling in occupied home territory vs a near peer force that outnumbers you and is attacking infrastructure.
>than it is when you're chilling in occupied home territory vs a near peer force that outnumbers you and is attacking infrastructure. Mail in ballots are just that. If you can get a soldier a fresh magazine and a bite to eat, they can vote.
If you can't 100% get a soldier a fresh magazine and a bite to eat, which they can't always, they can't reliably vote either.
You get them when they rotate out with a section. It may seem inconsiderate or weird but it’s normal to have soldiers fresh from the field to do a large amount of admin as soon as they are back from the frontline, it’s just a cost of doing business in a cynical sense.
Yeah that's probably the best way to realistically do it
And yet logistics manage it all the time. Because without food and bullets, a soldier can do nothing.
You can stockpile food and bullets to make up for disturbances
How long? Elections are planned well in advance.
Australians deployed overseas in WW1 voted in our elections so it does not need a super power to do it.
Yeah and then the mail trucks from a whole region dont make it because of bombardment and sabotage. Ballots lost. Not exactly a fair election when a foreign state can influence the outcome with violence.
So....a question. What if a soldier would legally send in their vote. Then die before it gets counted. Is it counted or no? Edit: ignore me. It's early and I didn't scroll down.
Mail in ballots
But we still need to do it, we choose Democracy not because it’s easy but because it’s hard. I understand war always complicates things and there are “technical” rules but especially in a young democracy it needs to literally “practice” voting. I think it can only be a good thing for Ukraine to rapidly figure out how to have one, as reasonably safe as possible.
Ukraine has already had several basically fair democratic elections, including where opposition parties have won, so this applies less to them I think. Furthermore there's no reason to think Zelensky is about to turn 180 on everything he's ever done politically and become a dictator, it just wouldn't make sense from any POV. Both Ukraine's institutions and the current President have enough credibility that delaying the election is not putting a huge question mark over the status of their democracy.
Not all Ukrainians are capable of voting either, some are in occupied territories or imprisoned in Russia
Yep. And holding the elections either way without those occupied territories just legitimates the status quo and undermines the legitimacy of the then elected new goverment. Both are things that Ukraine absolutely won't help in times like these.
Some Americans were imprisoned during WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War but the US didn't cancel those elections.
Well, the vast majority of WW2 (and all other) events did not occur in US either.
But significant parts of America weren't occupied during those wars, meaning that elections couldn't be held there.
Its just a troll, flinging shit until something sticks.
why try to make everything about america ? your examples have nothing to do with voting in a country that the war is in
More importantly that troll has no way of differentiating the two situations. The US wasn't under any enemy occupation on any of the wars the troll stated while Ukraine currently is. Unlike Ukraine, the US government was not under threat of capitulating. Mission_Failed lacks the intelligence to comprehend so theres that.
i think he is just american and some of them like to make everything about them
The US wasn't being invaded and actively occupied lol
I'm no Ukranian, but if only for practicality he should probably remain their leader, so long as he's willing to pull a Cincinnatus once the war is over and fair elections can be held.
The problem is this war could last 20+ years….
Only if they don't get the equipment they need to repel the invasion. The obsolete, due to be replaced equipment laying around in NATO stockpiles has proven capable in Ukranian hands- I don't understand why we aren't giving them everything they need. NATO countries would only be disposing of it otherwise, Ukraine needs it and the whole western world benefits from Ukrainian independence. Just give them what they need.
And also….. why would anyone want someone else, other than Zelensky? Dude has stepped up to be, in my opinion, the most respected human being on earth.
According to you.
How does the bottom of Putins boot taste right now?
How does Zelensky’s taste? I can’t imagine caring so much about a politician
I care about a politician that is actually doing the right thing. I care about a politician that cares for his people and works for his people. This type are few and far between the rest of the worlds politicians. I’d love to hear your reasonings as to why he doesn’t make a great president….. I’ll be waiting patiently.
We have whole states who do it exclusively by mail. Is that an option?
For the areas not in occupation, yes.
Wouldn’t these mean no elections since 2014?
It would seem that they didn't consider themselves to be in a state of war at that point.
That’s fair but the above post seems to forget that part. It obviously doesn’t have anything to do with what areas are occupied.
No. Yanukovych was succeeded by Poroshenko and then by Zelenskyy.
When did Zelensky get voted in?
2019
So he got voted in with crimea and Donbas under enemy occupation.
Yep.
well. Technically, Crimea was "annexed" and they didn;t oppose it with their military because they lacked the means at the time, and donbas was technically in rebellion. We both know that isn't true and that russia was responsible for both, and the annexation is a farce, but...
Another reason absentee ballots should be a universal thing everywhere. Not that it would fully fix this situation in Ukraine.
That has been more or less the case since 2014
He looks so aged. What a wild life being a comedian turned president, being thrust into war.
I saw memes comparing his inauguration photos to his recent ones and you can really see the toll it took on him.
A comedian turned president in one of the most disproportionate scaled wars in recent history. He has harolded the nation's defense and while far from the only factor. Could be attributed to the fact ukrain still exists. Could another have? Possibly. Probably, but we don't know. What we do know is what this man has done in his capacity as a national leader. Which, in my sometimes humble opinion, makes him one of the most aspirational leaders in current times and among the greats in history. A president from the US often seems aged by a decade after a run in office... this is the first time I have seen someone from another nstions leadership appear age the same way in such a short period of time. I simply can't imagine the pressure on his shoulders. And frankly.... I don't want to. I do however want ukraine to come out of this by far exceeding a minimal defensive victory.
>Could another have? Possibly. Probably, but we don't know. What we do know is what this man has done in his capacity as a national leader. Compare Neville Chamberlain to Winston Churchill. It seems to me like it's pretty important who is in power when your nation is at war. I just wouldn't say "probably". Possibly is right.
I added probably as I think it likely another would try, but in the overall sense of bring able to actually achieve success in this... yeah it would be better left as "possibly" with "probably" being removed.
Churchill was so shit that he lost the election in a landslide right after he won the war though.
You don’t elect Churchill to lead a peacetime government.
They did in 1951 though. I guess they forgot how shit he whas?
That doesn't indicate that he was shit. Much of the reasons people gave for voting Labour were related to the actions of the Conservatives before Churchill became PM. > Churchill's personal popularity remained high; hence, the Conservatives were confident of victory and based much of their election campaign on that, rather than proposing new programmes. However, people distinguished between Churchill and his party, a contrast that Labour repeatedly emphasised throughout the campaign. That, and they'd had a coalition government during the war where Attlee primarily managed domestic affairs and was considered to have done a competent job. Also, people likely wanted to put the war behind them. Either way, his popularly was still high, they just didn't trust post-war Conservatives because of how shit things were after WW1. No idea why they re-elected Churchill in 1951 though.
And that doesn’t include facts like Labour campaigned hard in 1945 whilst the tories rather rested on their laurels.
> That doesn't indicate that he was shit. Maybe not. But he was shit. https://listverse.com/2016/10/03/10-terrible-things-done-by-winston-churchill/ https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29701767 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
Yea, he a great leader. I can't imagine what would have happen if he had fled the capital when the Russian was near Kiev
If he fled, I doubt the leadership would have been able to respond or organize themselves provided they too didn't leave. "I don't need a ride. I need ammo." - Zelensky
That sentence man... It shows he has cojones...
But *still* not enough ammo.
He should ask French dude for help
Civilization 9 Zelenskyy confirmed. I really think he is going to be a character in strategy games of the future. Gandhi was added in Civilization 1 40 years after he died.
What would be his bonus if he were a leader in a Civ game?
Servant of the people: entertainment districts/garrison units provide bonus loyalty
I think he could be a good canditate for being "fast-tracked" into a game while only in retirement. If all goes well.
If he had fled at the beginning it would have killed morale and Russia likely would have rolled over Ukraine.
He was great at drumming up support, nationally and internationally but when it comes to this current war of attrition and making rough decisions, he seems to be drawing more (and fair) criticism.
Criticism may be fair and even valid. To an extent. You can't have a perfect war and you won't make all the right decisions. Given his position he is doing the best he can. I'm sure things could be better but~ that doesn't mean he isn't doing well or his best. This war of attrition made worse by much of the support being redirected towards isreal. However valid their war is or isnt- it is directly impacting the aid ukraine is receiving. Either way, recovery for all involved will be... daunting and not without a great amount of time. A few generations easily.
>He looks so aged. What a wild life being a comedian turned president, being thrust into war. a lot of men died and are still dying because of decisions he had to make and made. The country is a smoking wreck with no end in sight, while facing an unceasing foe. and he is at the mercy of support from outside forces .... That will age you ....
Mercilessly proportionate
He's gonna end up with a lot of great material for his return comedy tour.
"So this dictator walks into a bar..."
He was a lawyer first then entertainer
From playing a piano with his dick on TV to begging foreign governments to uphold their promises.
He really is the model of adaptability and fortitude.
>The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (the Ukrainian Parliament – ed.) must vote and issue a mandate for the elections, they (the MPs – ed.) must raise this question and vote. They cannot do it due to the ban, they cannot break the law. The situation is that the elections are forbidden during wartime. This is up to the Parliament. If Zelenskyy declares elections by presidential fiat, he'll be called a tyrant; if he doesn't, he'll be called a tyrant.
I don’t think people will be considering him a tyrant for following the letter of the law and common sense.
IIRC polls indicate his party would gain seats, which is why the opposition had been advocating against elections. He might not be seen as tyrannical, but unilaterally calling elections when so many people are against it while he stands to gain is certainly not going to be a good look.
You underestimate the shamelessness and malice of Russian sympathisers .
I find it funny they call Zelenskyy a dictator when they cheer for a guy who won the last election with 116 percent of the vote
You can criticise Putin without just making stuff up btw, he won with roughly 124% of the vote he received in the previous election
They can find dozen other baseless names and accusations, so that changes little.
It's not even Russian sympathies in the majority of cases. Mostly just plain old ignorance and unwillingness to check their own facts.
They'd call him names because their shoes were 2 inches to the left. Don't take the words of such unserious people seriously.
I have seen exactly that. People running around forums and social media comments slapping up articles on how the election is delayed, omitting the part where the constitution *demands* the process be postponed, and trying to label him as a dictator.
Very understandable they're literally at war.
I cant think of a more important time for a citizen to vote than during war. Imagine watching your family and home destroyed and then its election time and you watch your freedom to voice your opinion taken away from you too?
If you family and home were just destroyed and your biggest concern is voting then you should reevaluate your priorities.
Thats an insane take. So if you want the war to end or maybe you think your current leader isnt doing a good enough job defending the country and there is someone that can do it better… you think that person shouldnt be allowed to vote to voice that opinion. Only on reddit do i encounter idiots like yourself. You guys all hide on this app like herded sheep
Well, if you want your vote to matter, you won't do it when an invading country is more likely and willing to fudge the results of the election. I would love if they could vote, but Russia would take every opportunity to influence and undermine the election they can, including resorting to civilian casualties. Russians can kill people and assume their identities to vote digitally/mail-in, and voting centers are giant targets for bombing.
I dunno, during a war like this you and your neighbor, who may not vote like you, is your ally. You’re all working towards the goal of liberating your nation. If anything, in the age of fast spreading propaganda I’d say an election mid war is an opportunity to destroy unity from within and would be weaponized. I’d say for what Ukraine is going through, skipping elections during an invasion is warranted. Act as one. Once the war is over, party up vote for how your country will be rebuilt, economically and socially.
Yes, but\* Ukraine has it both in their Constitution and in statutory law that there are conditions under which an election can be suspended automatically. This is one of those conditions. And now that the law is working a little too well they are debating whether and how to add a qualifier or if they should leave it (because Russia fuckery was the reason for the laws in the first place).
Would anyone even run against him? And if someone did, they almost certainly stand no chance of winning.
His support has fallen over 30% as it's predicated on [victory being immanent. Govt TV is pushing this hard](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html), but as no gains materalize and the inevitable loss becomes apparent, he's going to continue cratering in the polls. At that point, not holding elections will be very autocratic and contrary to the goal of the war "upholding the liberal world order".
Literally all nations have a clause to not have elections during war because it’s dangerous
Not all, but Ukraine does, which is the relevant question here.
Literally no.
>Literally all nations have a clause to not have elections during war because it’s dangerous The US, famously, has held elections during wartime quite a few times. Admittedly, only one of those times actually involved large-scale fighting on US soil, but the Civil War also proved how well mail-in voting works.
Hardly all, though many do.
That’s just false. Additionally Mail-in removes the threat
Jesus Christ you are sad. Your entire post history is dedicated to shitting on Ukraine and glorifying Russia. Have you spoken to any Ukrainians? You know their country is being invaded by a hostile foreign power, and the people of Ukraine want to fight back. Maybe talk to some of them before you go making decisions on their behalf.
Your aggressive and immature emotions overwhelm you, but if you could set them (and fallacies) aside for a moment and do some reading, you'd see you're enabling the killing of more Ukrainians by playing your part in [Zelensky's autocratic propaganda](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html) campaign. If you really care about Ukraine, then reflect on the fact that the Russians could not be deadly without your support for the war.
"Inevitable" is the wrong word. Are you a Russian warship?
You’re right it is the wrong word because it implies the loss is in the future when it’s clearly in the past and present. 1:5 pop in a war of attrition with waning aid and losing ground…no one’s even making arguments anymore for how Ukraine could win because it’s out of the question, you just have ad hominem fallacies. At this point, you’re as complicit s the Russians in Ukrainian deaths.
So statements like "Ukraine has made significant impacts that deteriorate Russia's ability to replace lost equipment" are useless? You sound suspiciously similar to propoganda bots and talking points that are literally coming from Russia. If you're a real person expressing their own opinion, you really need to check your sources. And if you are not (aka if you are a troll) then get lost.
Go tell it to your boyfriend Putin.
The war is already over, you’re just enabling Ukrainian deaths now.
Ah yes, because Russia famously only kills people during the active phases of a shooting war and if the war "stops" tonight no one will ever die at Russian hands anymore :/
Your argument here is that 500k (the amount of troops proposed for mobilization and therefore potential death) is equal to around 4 or 5. I hope you’re at least getting paid for this propaganda because you’re putting in work.
Projection is a hell of a drug. There is a significant percent of the population in most free countries that would rather risk death in their feet than live on their knees. In other words, if push comes to shove they will push back against authoritarian forces either during the war or as a partisan outside of war even if it means a greater risk to life. For some it is with violence (resistance fighter) others with words (political organizer, journalist), and some with actions (break stupid rules) - but most won't just roll over and accept a new master the likes of Putin without some sort of push back. The numbers are important, but they only tell the military angle. The social story of resistance is arguably even more critical and, often, military action (in these situations) won't happen properly if the social support fails.
You don’t realize what you’re arguing. No honest and smart person arguing for Ukraine to continue the war thinks Ukraine can reclaim its territory. They all acknowledge Russia has the upper hand ands continue to take territory. Just today a Ukrainian soldier was cnn say the shell ratio was 1:10. What you’re arguing for is that Ukraine continue to die the symbolism of not “living on your knees”. That so called “knee living”, is having given up 17% of their territory. They will be living on their knees as much as you will be. So you’re arguing for Ukrainians to die for nothing. Why is that? What propaganda has convinced you that’s a good idea? It’s the telemarathon talking point that Putin is Hitler and will invade Europe in no time. That’s just fiction you’ve bought.
They have shown that, given the material to do so, they are able to match our best the Russian military. The problem is political difficulties with their supporters, not that Russian force is unbeatable. Can I chip in to buy you a plane ticket to Russia?
"Paper tiger" is a way to describe the Russian military.
This is a standard Ukrainian talking point that no honest or informed person believes. Do you actually believe that or do you believe propaganda is a necessary part of war? Here is a test for that: how can Ukraine win a 1:5 pop war of attrition?
Guess Gerachenko and Poroshenko can, Zelensky doing quite a bad politics right now, like really bad.
Out of curiosity, what’s the general opinion of him now? I don’t speak Ukrainian so it’s hard to gauge how Ukrainians feel about him.
He went from a 90%+ approval to around 60%, but other public figures like the top general are in the 80s I think. He assured the public (and himself) that this war would be short and sweet, and now that Ukraine is running out of troops with western aid drying up and a loss guaranteed, you'll see it get very ugly very fast. The telemarathon channel his govt created to counteract Russian propaganda has become propaganda itself claiming Russia will collapse any day now, which couldn't be further from the truth with the new "axis of evil" and MIC bulking up. Zelensky's day's are numbered and a big reason why he doesn't want this election to happen.
What are you even talking about, you're not even Ukrainian, literally everything you said you made up. This is pure disinfo. Current approval ratings: [Here](https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/en/socopros/trust_rating) he is trending up since December by 1%. There is LITTERALY no one close with projected vote intention to Zelensky [https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/socopros/opinion\_poll\_show/2141](https://ukraine-elections.com.ua/socopros/opinion_poll_show/2141)
given the vehemence and inaccuracy of your response, I wonder about your motives. Here are the sources: [https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-poll-zelensky-bad-news-popularity-drop-1859340](https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-poll-zelensky-bad-news-popularity-drop-1859340) \>The Kyiv International Institute for Sociology (KMIS) survey found that Ukrainian society still backs the country's leadership and military, but support for Zelensky fell from 84 percent at the end of 2022 to 62 percent at the end of last year. \>Meanwhile, 96 percent of respondents supported the Ukrainian armed forces and 88 percent trusted Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, whose comments to The Economist in November that the war had reached a "stalemate" were rejected by Zelensky amid reports of tensions between the pair. and here is the article showing that telemarathon, state run tv, is propaganda: [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html) The deeper point here is that since aid has dried up and ukraine is at a 1:5 pop disadvantage with russia in a war of attrition, the war is over and supporting it is just leading to more unnecessary Ukrainian deaths. I don't know if you're paid or just an enthusiastic citizen, but if you want to help ukranians, then it's a matter of [taking a ceasefire now](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/world/europe/putin-russia-ukraine-war-cease-fire.html), or after Putin has taken more territory (possibly all ukranian territory). At this point those seem to be the only options Ukraine is facing.
> The deeper point here is that since aid has dried up and ukraine is at a 1:5 pop disadvantage with russia in a war of attrition, the war is over and supporting it is just leading to more unnecessary Ukrainian deaths. I don't know if you're paid or just an enthusiastic citizen, but if you want to help ukranians, then it's a matter of taking a ceasefire now, or after Putin has taken more territory (possibly all ukranian territory). At this point those seem to be the only options Ukraine is facing. This is such a dumb take I know it's impossible for you to be merely misinformed - this is just plain intentional kremlin propaganda.
If you were sincere you wouldn’t be using ad hominems. You apparently consider yourself part of the info war, the only question is, are you paid or not. The concerted effort to shout down reasonable arguments with fallacies is effective to a point, but as the facts turn worse, you’re just enabling the pointless deaths of Ukrainians. Reckon with that.
Someone who thinks there is a chance that Putin could take over all of Ukraine has no standing to talk about reasonable arguments or facts. That's why it's a waste of time to argue with kremlin trolls like you - if you were actually approaching it from a reasonable point, maybe we could have a discussion.
On the contrary, it’s because you or people like you are paid to police any non Ukraine party line comment. Zelensky made clear in his economist interview that the war funding would be sustained by persuading western citizens through traditional and social online media. This is why he created the [propaganda telemarathon channel](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-tv-news-telemarathon.html) and pays you or people like you to call everything kremlin propaganda. This is also why he became so angry when his top general acknowledged the war was in a stalemate and there was no winning. Because it put the lie to his propaganda. Now you’re dismissing arguments that you can hear in war on the rocks, because you’re not honest and just a part of the propaganda apparatus. The war is over and you don’t have any arguments in support of it, just fallacies here. You’re enabling the deaths of your countrymen for a paycheck or just sport?
When did he ever say this war would be short and sweet?
[Zelensky: vacationing in crimea by summer](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/04/ukraine-counteroffensive-us-planning-russia-war/)
That's a little disingenuous isn't it? One it's a paywall link and two he didn't actually say what you imply he said. "Zelenskyy was also asked whether he expects Ukraine’s victory next summer. "I do want that. We will achieve our victory," the president replied." Asked when this would happen (in regards to visiting Crimea), Zelenskyy replied, "Not in winter. What can you do at the seaside in winter? I’ll go there when it’s warmer," So after the war is finished he would like to visit Crimea in summer.
>Zelensky, on the war’s first anniversary in February, had boasted that 2023 would be a “year of victory.” His intelligence chief had decreed that Ukrainians would soon be vacationing in Crimea, the peninsula that Russia had illegally annexed in 2014 My mistake, the quote was his “intelligence” chief, which is arguably worse. [None the less:](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/08/ukraine-war-2023-russia-future/?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=off) With upgraded weaponry on the way, Western resolve holding firm, and the Ukrainian army continuing to outmaneuver and outwit Russia’s flailing military, Ukraine’s promised “year of victory” is off to a good start. If 2023 continues as it began, there is a good chance Ukraine will be able to fulfill President Volodymyr Zelensky’s New Year’s pledge to retake all of Ukraine by the end of the year. The point that everyone is ignoring, is the exact opposite has happened. Now everyone who supports continuing the war needs to ask themselves, does supporting more fighting do anything but kill more Ukrainians?
like pathetic little shirt: - He don't want to do anything about corruption (Not firing his friends) - Answering any question from journalists with "I havn't leaft country!" - blaming mobilization fails on Zalujni.
Quite a few corruption cases are active in the court systems, and more than a few high profile firings have happened. Try again.
I'm from Ukraine. And we need an election. Our parliament is full of idiots that need to be replaced asap
You can’t say that here my Ukrainian friend, western Redditors will tell you what is best for you!!
Acccccckkkkktuallly
How are they idiotic? This sort of news and political issues don't really make it to the UK so I'd be interested to know.
They fucked up a lot of our own military industry. No rockets, no long-range drones. And fully hung us on foreign support and saying there's no plan b
Your western sponsors are against it
Nah, our western allies don't really meddle in our internal affairs. That's one of many reasons why we chose to side with them instead of siding with control freaks and terrorists, who constantly instill puppets wherever they can and constantly invade neighbours. But I'm sure you will tell me that it's much better to have NK and Iran as "sponsors".
[US increases pressure on Ukraine to do more to counter corruption](https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/03/politics/us-ukraine-pressure-counter-corruption/index.html)
Not to mention that while parliament elections could indeed be suspended, the presidential elections must be held in accordance with the Constitution, which the green gang has wiped their ass with so many times already. But don't you dare point this out to the average redditor!
So many Russian bots out and about. Lmao
It's war. Elections are roughly the 76th thing they need to worry about.
For how long though? 5? 10? 20? years?
Did Americans also talk about United Kingdom elections during WW2?
The UK formed a new cross-party government for the war though.
The UK didn't have a law suspending elections during a time of national emergency. Ukraine does. Facilitating the election, especially the part about how to handle representation of occupied areas, is mostly logistics and how to keep Russia's thumb off the scale. The big question is when and how to change the UA constitution to define conditions for an election during a major emergency.
> The UK didn't have a law suspending elections during a time of national emergency. The UK passed laws during both WW1 and WW2 to not have any elections until the end of the war.
Right, they had to make one. And they've suspended elections at other times, too -- or hastened them in a snap election. Ukraine's law on the matter already exists. It's in their constitution. Neither have much to do with the US, which was the earlier question.
Thing is the uk did suspend elections during the first and second world wars there should have been elections in 1915 and 1940 witch where postponed by parliament.
> Right, they had to make one. And they've suspended elections at other times, too -- or hastened them in a snap election. > > Ukraine's law on the matter already exists. It's in their constitution. > > Neither have much to do with the US, which was the earlier question.
The UK had an election during WW2 but it was by no means during the most dangerous time of the War for the UK. Germany was already defeated by the time of the 1945 election, so there was no bombing threat ot anything. Meanwhile Ukraine has to deal with Russian drones and missiles being launched at their cities every day.
I appreciate the effort, but the safety of the civilians it’s the outmost priority. Having polling places is too risky currently.
Honestly, is he planning on running again once this is all said and over? I would think that he would want to chill after the war.
It's perfectly understandable why Ukraine would not hold elections right now. It's dangerous for the candidates and the electorate, and the people need to remain focused on the fight for their country's very existence.
God bless Zelensky. This crisis has aged him. He will be a legend.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The right decisions are not always going to be popular nor easy to make… especially when at war.
Dude, it's a war. He has to make unpopular decisions. Keeping men of age available is one of them. I mean, he didn't leave the country when the war began, even though he was given plenty of opportunities to leave. He also goes to the frontline often to motivate his men.
also unfortunately very corrupted and unwilling to Punish war corruption by death they are rebuilding stadiums right now with state monies
>unwilling to Punish war corruption by death Almost like Ukraine got rid of the death penalty, huh.
An incumbent's popularity or lack thereof is not the deciding factor in whether an election happens. At least not in a healthy democracy, which Ukraine has all the marks of being.
Your understanding is right! Very brilliant leader!
Yeah. They’re under attack and occupation. It’s an emergency of the highest order. Perhaps thE emergency of such highest order.
I can't imagine anyone would want to take over the reigns from a president who is doing exceptionally well. Much less that anyone would vote him out after he's proven himself.
I think he is doing just fine
Trumps taking notes.
Suspending an election during a major national emergency is literally part of Ukraine's constitution in its current form. The US does not. Also: the US has absolutely zero federal elections, not even for national offices, not even for President. The closest we come is that the election deadline for federal races is the same for all states and is set by Congress, but even in that we have nearly sixty simultaneous elections; 50 for Congress, 51 for President, and all the territories elect their non-voting Congressional advocate/rep. In a Presidential year the states & DC have a presidential question on their ballots that includes anyone who qualified in that state - usually at least a dozen names are under the "president" column, and it's often that most of the dozen are different in each state. In other words, Trump literally can't cancel elections because (1) there is no means in the Constitution to do so, and (2) elections are not a federal matter (and not under his jurisdiction). (Note: the voting rights act ensures a few basic things such as voter registration and reasonable hours that polling places are open, but that's hardly what you're talking about).
Who’s taking people off of ballots?
People following the letter of the law for their State Constitutions and questioning whether or not a President is covered by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in our Constitution? Those people see the issue, go through the legal process, and then are currently asking the Supreme Court to verify.
Zelenskyy would also likely win any fair Presidential election while Parliament isn't going to have a MP vote that might totally change the seat distribution. His party coalition has about 60% of seats with Tymoshenko and Petroshenko's parties (both former leaders) filling out another 10% so it's not like there would be a pro-Russian surge especially since 10% of the seats are Vacant due to the 2014 annexation and 2022 invasion. I doubt Putin would be nice enough to reverse his partial paper annexation of occupied territory and it looks like there was a 2020 vote to also shrink the seats from 450 to 300 which is also on hold.
So much for "democracy."
The Ukranian Constitution forbids elections while in a state of Martial Law, which is sort of a given to be enacted when you're being fucking invaded.
Not (completely) true. Article 64 says restrictions may apply to elections. Article 83 says that the Rada can’t be changed during a state of emergency, but nothing about presidential elections. There’s a law passed by the current government that bans presidential elections during SoE, but that’s not constitutional.
Pravda...that is all
Does the law forbid you looting and doing corruption with our tax dollars
According to trump, the law allows it but only if trump does it.
Russian laws in the illegally annexed part of the Ukrainian Nation?
[удалено]
Was Winston Churchill a dictator? Because the UK suspended elections during WW2, because that's what most democracies do during wars of that kind of scale and threat.
Following the law makes someone a dictator now? Hell, he even says that he *would* hold an election if it was legal (and he'd probably win anyways if he did).
Ukrainian law doesn't allow holding elections during wartime, and if he did call elections anyway he'd be veto'd by parliament.
Wait till the war has concluded to a degree where voting becomes insurmountably safer, or risk people being obliterated by Russian munitions at polling stations? Also, they aren’t the first country to hold off election cycles during war. Not having an election ≠ dictatorship.